Article One, Section Nine, The United States Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety shall require it." As a number of folks have noted earlier, Lincoln had adequate constitutional cause and mandate to suspend the writ, and the courts upheld his action. The issue in Ex Parte Milligan had nothing to do with Habeus Corpus, but rather with whether or not a military court could legitimately try Milligan, when there was a functioning civil court available to the government. In the Milligan decision the Court went out of its way to affirm the legitimate right of the President to suspend the writ, and to clarify that in its decision, the Court had no intention to suggest that Lincoln had behaved improperly in doing so. Lincoln could quite legitmately detain Milligan indefinitley without bringing him to trial--but if Lincoln's government *did* choose to bring him to trial, they had to do so in a civilian court, if a functioning civilian court was available to them. The case is widely available, and anyone inclinded to disagree with my interpretation above should first read it for themselves. I am working from the redacted version in Hammond, Hardwick, and Lubert, CLASSICS OF AMERICAN POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT, (Hackett Press, 2007), Volume One, p. 1168. You can find the paragraphs relevant to Habeus Corpus on the left hand column of that page. Not that I am going to plug my own work, or anything :) All best, Kevin ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:28:32 -0600 >From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: The Constitution >To: [log in to unmask] > >What amendment grants Habeas Corpus? > >John Philip Adams >Texas Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. Department of History James Madison University To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html